Re: [Wikipedia-l] moving forward on article validation

Proposal #2: Institute a rating and trust-metric system --- Wikipedians rate revisions, perhaps on some scale from "complete crap" to "I'm an expert in this field and am confident of its accuracy and high quality". Then there is some way of coming up with a score for that revision, perhaps based on the trustworthiness of the raters themselves (determined through some method). Once that's done, the interface can do things like display the last version of an article over some score, if any, or a big warning that the article sucks otherwise (and so on). Some pros: Distributed; no duplicated effort; good revisions are marked good as soon as enough people have vetted them; humans review the articles, but the "process" itself is done automatically; most articles will have some information about their quality to present to a reader Some cons: Gameing-proof trust metric systems are notoriously hard to design.